Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.
- Rizwan ali & another vs The State2020 SHC 722 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ahmed vs Jameel Ahmed and 9 others2020 YLR 366 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ahmed Khan & another vs Province of Sindh & 02 others2020 SHC 214 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
- Riaz vs The State2020 YLR 1080 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism convicting and sentencing the appellant to two years of rigorous imprisonment under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. Alongside the main appeal, the appellant filed an application seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the disposal of the appeal, on the ground that the awarded sentence is of a short duration and that he was on bail during the trial. The State prosecutor raised no objection to the suspension given the short sentence. The Sindh High Court held that since the sentence is short and the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future due to a heavy backlog of cases, the sentence ought to be suspended. The court accordingly allowed the application, suspended the conviction and sentence, and directed the release of the appellant on bail subject to furnishing surety.
Questions settled- Can a sentence of two years be considered a short sentence for the purpose of suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
- Whether the execution of sentence can be suspended when the hearing of an appeal is likely to be delayed due to a heavy backlog of cases?
- Is a convicted person who was on bail during trial entitled to suspension of sentence when given a short term of imprisonment?
- Riaz Ahmed vs Ned University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi2020 MLD 114 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah Rehan, Proprietor of Chatriwala International vs Muhammad2020 MLD 905 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, West Karachi, convicting the appellant under Section 265-H(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for defamation and ordering him to pay a fine directly to the complainant. The complainant alleged that the appellant sent a defamatory email and circulated pamphlets to his business associates. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, as key witnesses refused to support the complainant and the allegedly defamatory documents were not proved. The High Court further observed that the trial judge acted improperly by reopening the trial after arguments to summon a court witness and by directing the fine to be paid directly to the complainant instead of depositing it into the state treasury. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a trial court reopen a criminal case after closing the prosecution evidence and hearing final arguments to summon additional evidence without legal justification?
- Whether the burden of proof in a criminal defamation case shifts to the accused before the prosecution proves the charge beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can a criminal court direct that a fine imposed as a criminal sentence be paid directly to the complainant as private damages?
- Rehan Khalid vs Chairman Federal Board of Revenue Islamabad and 52020 SHC 954 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-12Read full judgment →
- Razak Latif and another vs ACE Securities Pvt Limited2020 SHC 304 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
- Raza Muhammad through his legal heirs vs Muhammad Jamal and 22020 SHC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bux, Shah Nawaz, Moula Bux, Faqeer Muhammad, Faiz Muhammad, Muhammad Bux and Hakim Ali vs Shahmir Son of Leemon2020 SHC 564 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a bail application filed by the applicants/accused seeking confirmation of their pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges of rioting, assault, and attempt to commit murder arising from a matrimonial dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail in a counter-blast case where both parties sustained injuries and cross-FIRs were registered, making it a matter of further inquiry as to which party was the aggressor. The Sindh High Court held that since both sides sustained injuries in the incident and cross-cases were registered, the question of who was the aggressor required further inquiry at trial, and sending the applicants to jail would serve no useful purpose. The Court laid down the principle that in counter-version cases where both parties have lodged cross-FIRs and sustained injuries over a matrimonial dispute, the accused are entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed in a case of counter-version where both parties have sustained injuries and lodged cross-FIRs?
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C. when both parties claim the other to be the aggressor?
- Whether accused persons can be granted bail when injuries sustained by the complainant party are not declared dangerous to life?
- Rasool Bux Solangi and others vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 831 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed by retired civil servants (lecturers) seeking the grant of withheld annual increments and the subsequent re-fixation of their pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to these increments and benefits, despite the respondents' previous refusal, given that identical relief had been granted to other similarly situated employees by this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the withheld increments and adjusted pensionary benefits. The ratio of the decision is that once a point of law regarding the terms and conditions of service is settled by the Court, the dictates of justice and good governance require that the benefit of such decision be extended to all similarly situated civil servants, rather than compelling them to initiate separate litigation. The key principle laid down is that the denial of such benefits to some, while granting them to others in identical circumstances, constitutes discrimination and violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of law.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant is entitled to the grant of annual increments as a matter of right?
- Does the denial of service benefits to some civil servants, while granting them to others in identical circumstances, constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the benefit of a judicial decision regarding terms and conditions of service be extended to similarly situated civil servants who were not parties to the original litigation?
- Does the right to sue for pensionary benefits survive the death of a petitioner under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Rashid Chandio and another vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 456 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application concerns two police officials seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, along with other police personnel, trespassed into the complainant's house and instigated a firing incident that resulted in the death of a 12-year-old girl. The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated, noting an inordinate delay in the FIR registration and the recording of witness statements, and asserting they were on security duty elsewhere at the time of the incident. The Court observed that the FIR did not attribute specific weapons or injuries to the applicants, and their vicarious liability remained a matter for trial. Finding that the investigation was complete, the applicants were no longer required for custody, and significant delays in recording witness statements without explanation warranted further inquiry, the Court held that the applicants' case fell within the scope of Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing the tentative nature of its findings.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without specific attribution of weapons or injuries, warrant the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted when there is an unexplained, inordinate delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
- Rao Noor Ahmed vs Shabbir Hussain Kapasi and 7 others2020 YLR 705 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-28Read full judgment →
- Rano Khan Jeho Abro vs SSP Shikarpur & Others2020 SHC 822 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-07Read full judgment →
- Ranjhan & Ors vs The State2020 SHC 734 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Ranjhan and others, seeking release pending trial. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail in the circumstances of the case. Upon consideration of the matter, the court allowed the bail application. The court held that the applicants are granted bail, subject to the condition of furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each, along with a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of an equivalent amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The key principle applied is that the grant of bail is a judicial discretion exercised by the court to ensure the attendance of the accused at trial while upholding the presumption of innocence, provided the accused meets the requisite financial security conditions set by the court. The application was disposed of accordingly, with detailed reasons to be recorded in a subsequent order.
Questions settled- Are the applicants entitled to post-arrest bail?
- What are the conditions for the grant of bail in this matter?
- Rana Nasir Ali vs Gul Agha and 6 others2020 YLR 2331 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings under the Act are maintainable when the parties are engaged in a bona fide civil dispute regarding title and possession of a property. The court held that the complaint was rightly dismissed, affirming that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is not intended to substitute for civil litigation or to be used as a tool to pressure an opponent in a civil dispute. The court emphasized that for an offense to be constituted under the Act, the presence of both actus reus and mens rea is essential. Where conflicting registered documents exist and the matter is pending before a civil court, the dispute is essentially civil in nature. Consequently, the court ruled that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated to resolve title disputes, as the necessary criminal intent is absent in such circumstances.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be initiated when there is a bona fide civil dispute regarding property title?
- Is the presence of both actus reus and mens rea required to constitute an offense under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
- Should a court entertain a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 when the validity of competing title documents is pending adjudication in a civil suit?
- Rana Imran Mehmood vs M/s Nib Bank Ltd & Ors2020 SHC 478 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-04Read full judgment →
- Ramesh Lal and another vs Khatoo Mal and another2020 MLD 1769 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the Qatl-e-amd of a minor. The prosecution case originated from a direct complaint filed after a delay of several months following the initial police disposal of the FIR under 'A' class. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence, the legal effect of inordinate delay in lodging a direct complaint and recording witness statements, and the sustainability of conviction when co-accused on the same set of evidence had been acquitted. The High Court evaluated the evidence, noting that the key prosecution witness did not support the case and that inconsistencies existed in the testimonies of other witnesses. Relying on established precedents regarding delay and benefit of doubt, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing a direct complaint and recording witness statements casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be maintained on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused have already been acquitted without independent corroboration?
- What is the effect of a key prosecution witness not supporting the case of the prosecution?
- When is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right?
- Rajib vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1342 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Arms Ordinance, and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involved whether an unrepresented accused can be convicted without an identification parade when unnamed in the FIR, and whether delayed submission of weapon samples and inconsistent testimonies vitiate the prosecution case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of an identification parade, delayed dispatch of weapon empties to the forensic expert, material contradictions in witness testimonies, failure to put crucial evidence to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the acquittal of a co-accused on identical evidence. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, and testimonies disbelieved as to one co-accused cannot support the conviction of another without independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to hold an identification parade for an accused whose name is not mentioned in the FIR renders the conviction unsustainable?
- Can a piece of evidence not put to the accused during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered against him?
- Whether testimonies of prosecution witnesses disbelieved with respect to an acquitted co-accused can be relied upon against another co-accused without independent corroboration?
- Does an unexplained and inordinate delay in dispatching crime empties and recovered weapons to the forensic expert compromise the evidentiary value of the forensic report?
- Rajib vs The State and others2020 YLR 2258 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and confirmation reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Rajib, under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused, lured the deceased under the pretext of a financial settlement regarding a motorcycle transaction and subsequently murdered him by a firearm shot. The core legal questions involved the assessment of eyewitness credibility, corroboration by medical and recovery evidence, and the legal effect of an unproven motive on the quantum of sentence in a murder case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and trustworthy eyewitness and forensic evidence. However, because the alleged motive was vague, unproven, and attributed primarily to an absconding co-accused rather than the appellant, the court laid down the principle that failure to establish motive operates as a mitigating circumstance sufficient to warrant withholding the capital sentence, thereby commuting the death penalty to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive necessitate the acquittal of an accused whose presence and overt acts are otherwise established by reliable eyewitness testimony?
- Whether an unproven motive can serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a sentence of death to imprisonment for life in a murder case?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained solely on the basis of eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recovery?
- What is the legal effect on the death sentence when the motive is attributed to an absconding co-accused rather than the convicted appellant?
- Raja Naveed vs Province of Sindh & 06 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1573, 2020 SHC 984 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by a police constable seeking the resumption of his salary and continuation of service, alleging that it was withheld without due process. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the withholding of salary by a civil servant, or whether jurisdiction is barred by Article 212 in favor of the Service Tribunal. The court held that salary forms part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, and therefore, under the constitutional bar contained in Article 212 and settled precedents, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such matters in its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was consequently dismissed as non-maintainable, leaving the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate service tribunal. The key principle laid down is that disputes concerning the salary and terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall exclusively within the domain of the relevant Service Tribunal under Article 212, ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the withholding of a civil servant's salary?
- Does the Sindh Services Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to decide issues relating to the salary and terms and conditions of service of a civil servant under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Can factual controversies regarding the genuineness of an appointment be resolved in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Rahim Dino & another vs Learned Asst: Commissioner/ Lao Islamkot @2020 SHC 476 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-04Read full judgment →
- Rahim Buksh vs Jahangeer Baluch2020 SHC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
- Rahim Ali Palari and 2 others vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Transport and 2 others2020 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for damages filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, by the legal heirs of a deceased victim killed in a road accident involving a government-owned bus. The core legal questions addressed were whether the suit was barred by Section 67-G of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, and the extent of the defendants' liability for the driver's negligence. The Court held that the suit was maintainable, ruling that the Motor Vehicles Ordinance does not preclude civil claims for damages. Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the Court found the defendants vicariously liable for the fatal negligence of their employee. The Court established that compensation should be calculated based on the victim's reasonable life expectancy and prevailing minimum wage standards, rather than strict proof of exact historical income. Furthermore, the judgment affirmed that courts possess the authority to mould relief to ensure adequate compensation and deterrent effects in tortious actions, awarding damages for pecuniary loss and loss of consortium.
Questions settled- Does Section 67-G of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, bar a civil suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- Does the principle of res ipsa loquitur apply to shift the burden of proof in fatal accident cases where the incident is undisputed?
- Can a court award damages based on minimum wage standards when specific proof of the deceased's historical income is contested?
- Are employers vicariously liable for the negligent driving of their employees in fatal accident cases?
- Rahib & another vs The State2020 SHC 1378 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and sentencing by the trial court for charges involving firearm injuries inflicted upon the complainant with the intent to commit murder. During the appellate proceedings, the appellants and the complainant party reached a compromise, seeking to compound the offence. The complainant and the injured witness appeared before the Court, confirming they had pardoned the appellants in the name of Almighty Allah following the intervention of local mediators (nekmards) and had waived their rights to Qisas and Diyat. The appellants requested acquittal based on this compromise, a position not opposed by the State. The Court, upon reviewing the record and confirming the voluntary nature of the compromise, accepted the settlement. The Court held that since the offence was compoundable and a genuine, voluntary compromise had been reached, the appellants were entitled to acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and ordered the immediate release of the appellants, provided they were not required in any other custody case.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court accept a compromise between parties in a criminal case involving firearm injuries?
- Does a voluntary pardon and waiver of Qisas and Diyat by the complainant justify the acquittal of the accused in a compoundable offence?
- Rafiullah vs 11th Additional District And Session Judge (West), Karachi and another2020 MLD 942 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed against the order of the trial court dismissing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the complainant sought to examine additional witnesses not named in the challan. The High Court observed that the proposed witnesses never approached the investigating officer during the investigation, nor did the complainant challenge the list of witnesses in the challan by filing a direct complaint. The Court held that allowing the complainant to introduce new witnesses after the conclusion of the trial would prejudice the accused's right to know the evidence against him under Section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and would amount to filling the lacunae in the prosecution's case. It was further noted that under Section 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the complainant is legally obliged to act through the prosecutor. The Court maintained that while the trial court has unfettered powers to summon court witnesses for the discovery of truth, this cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the parties, especially to prolong the trial. The revision application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a complainant introduce new witnesses not named in the challan after the conclusion of the trial under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the power of the court to summon witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be claimed as a matter of right by the prosecution or complainant?
- What is the effect of a complainant failing to challenge the list of witnesses in the challan by filing a direct complaint?
- Is a complainant legally permitted to independently file an application for summoning witnesses without acting through the prosecutor under Section 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Rafique Ahmed Shaikh vs National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC)2020 PLC 180 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought a High Court direction to enforce an interim order passed by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and requested an expedited decision on his pending appeal regarding a disputed resignation. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to enforce an order of the NIRC or compel the NIRC to expedite proceedings, given that the NIRC possesses statutory powers to execute its own orders. The Court held that it is not an executing court for the NIRC and noted that the NIRC is empowered under the National Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to enforce its own decisions. However, acknowledging the delay in the pending appeal and the petitioner's grievance, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Full Bench of the NIRC to decide the appeal within one month. Additionally, the Court ordered that the operation of the impugned resignation letter remain in abeyance until the NIRC renders its final decision, thereby balancing the need for judicial efficiency with the statutory framework governing industrial relations.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to act as an executing court for orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
- Can the High Court issue directions to the National Industrial Relations Commission to expedite the disposal of a pending appeal?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable for the enforcement of an interim order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
- Rafique @ Peeko vs The State2020 SHC 730 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder and assault. The core legal questions involve the credibility of related eye-witnesses, corroboration through medical evidence and recovery, explanation of delay in the FIR, and the propriety of awarding the death sentence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through straightforward ocular testimony of injured and related witnesses, which remained unshaken during cross-examination and was fully corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offense. The court affirmed that close relationship alone does not render a witness interested or unreliable, and that delay in lodging the FIR was sufficiently explained due to the priority of treating critically injured victims. The court laid down the principle that the normal penalty of death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code should not be withheld where the manner of the crime displays brutality, heinousness, or callousness without mitigating circumstances, thus dismissing the appeal and confirming the death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an eye-witness can be discarded solely on the ground of their close relationship with the deceased?
- Does mere delay in lodging the First Information Report invariably render the prosecution case doubtful?
- What factors determine whether a lesser penalty of imprisonment for life should be awarded instead of the normal death penalty under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether medical evidence sufficiently corroborates ocular testimony in cases of fatal knife attacks?
- Qurban Ali vs Fed of Pak and others2020 SHC 628 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-12Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali Shah and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Federal2020 PLD Sindh 242 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali and another vs The State2020 MLD 2033 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and sentence for murder and related offences, where the appellants challenged the trial court's judgment on the grounds of procedural irregularities. The core legal question was whether a trial conducted in the absence of defense counsel, where key prosecution witnesses were examined without cross-examination, and where the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was deficient, constitutes a miscarriage of justice. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's failure to ensure the presence of defense counsel for cross-examination and the omission of critical incriminating evidence during the accused's examination caused serious prejudice to the appellants. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, remanding the case for a fresh trial. The key principle laid down is that cross-examination is a fundamental right and a vital tool for testing witness credibility; recording evidence in a capital case without providing the accused a fair opportunity for cross-examination and failing to properly examine the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the trial illegal and unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the examination of prosecution witnesses in the absence of defense counsel in a capital case constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial?
- Can a conviction be sustained if the trial court fails to put all incriminating evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Quratulain Ibrahim Arain vs Government of Sindh2020 SHC 1200 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-02Read full judgment →
- Qurat ul Ain Ibrahim Arain vs Govt. of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 1242 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-02Read full judgment →
- Qasim son of Ameer Bakhsh Lund vs The State2020 SHC 1196 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, which convicted the appellant for the offence of Qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when the prosecution's primary witnesses turned hostile and failed to identify the culprits, and when co-accused facing similar allegations had already been acquitted based on the same evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the complainant and eyewitnesses did not implicate the appellant, and the investigating officer’s conduct was questionable. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that when eyewitnesses are disbelieved regarding one accused, they cannot be relied upon for another without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted when prosecution witnesses turn hostile and fail to identify the culprits?
- Is independent corroboration required to convict an accused when eyewitnesses have been disbelieved regarding other co-accused?
- Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right of the accused?
- Qasim International Container Terminal vs Collector, Model Customs2020 SHC 960 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
- Qasim International Container Terminal Pakistan Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & others2020 SHC 370, 2020 PTD 1952 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
- Qabil Rind & Other vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 604 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
- Public Interest Law Association Of Pakistan (Pilap) through Authorised2020 CLC 797 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-11Read full judgment →
- Province Of Sindh, through Secretary and 4 others vs Hoat Ali2020 CLC 583 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
- Province Of Sindh through Secretary Works and Services Department and 5 others vs Javed Baloch2020 MLD 1965 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
- Province of Sindh and others vs Messrs Parkock Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd.2020 PLD Sindh 136 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-22Read full judgment →
- Province Of Sindh and another vs Messrs Sardar Muhammad Ashraf D.2020 PLD Sindh 467 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
- Province of Sindh and another vs Land Acquisition Officer and others2020 SHC 404 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-18Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through Conservator of Forest, Faisalabad, etc vs Javed2021 KLR Labour & Service Cases 17, 2021 PLJ SC 175, 2021 P SC 178, 2021 SCMR 328, 2020 SCP 254 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several civil petitions addressing whether the proviso to section 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 is directory or mandatory regarding the finalization of departmental proceedings against retired employees within two years of retirement. The core legal question is the interpretation of the statutory timeline prescribed for concluding disciplinary inquiries against retired civil servants. The Supreme Court held that the proviso is mandatory, and failure to finalize departmental proceedings within two years of retirement renders the proceedings and subsequent orders void and abated. The key principle laid down is that statutory timelines protecting retired employees from prolonged inquiries are mandatory limitations on the power of public functionaries, ensuring that retired personnel are spared from long-drawn departmental proceedings beyond the prescribed period.
Questions settled- Whether the proviso to section 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 requiring departmental proceedings against a retired employee to be finalized within two years of retirement is directory or mandatory?
- What is the legal effect of failing to conclude disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee within the statutory two-year period under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
- Does the continuation of departmental proceedings beyond the prescribed two-year limitation period render subsequent departmental orders void?
- Project Implement Managers (Private) Limited vs Governor of Sindh &2020 SHC 1290 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
- Professor Syed Farhat Ali Jaffery vs Province of Sindh & 04 others2020 SHC 202 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
- Porsche Middle East And Africa Fze and another vs Akbar Adamjee and others2020 PLD Sindh 415 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
- Pir Muhammad Hassan Qadir vs Muhammad s/o Amoon & another2020 SHC 774 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
- Pir Bux vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Education Government of Sindh and 10 others2020 CLC 956 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-16Read full judgment →
- Pir Ashfaq Ahmed Sarhandi & Ors vs P.O Sindh & Ors2020 SHC 496 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
- Pervez alias Laddu vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1672 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 336-B and Section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 7(1)(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for throwing acid on the complainant. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's identity and the nature of the injuries as caused by a corrosive substance beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the victim's testimony was trustworthy, consistent with medical evidence, and corroborated by other witnesses, establishing that the substance used was indeed a corrosive substance constituting acid throwing under Section 336-B, P.P.C. and falling within the ambit of anti-terrorism laws. The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence, laying down that acid attacks on women cause severe physical and mental trauma amounting to heinous crimes deserving no leniency, and that sole victim testimony when reliable and corroborated is sufficient to maintain a conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a sole victim and eye-witness, when found trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for acid throwing?
- Does an acid attack causing burn injuries fall within the definition of a terrorist act under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Whether acid constitutes a corrosive substance under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Peoples University of Medical & Health Sciences for Women & others vs Pakistan & others2021 PLD Sindh 256, 2020 SHC 1312 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves several constitutional petitions challenging the vires of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, and the regulations framed thereunder, particularly concerning the centralized Medical and Dental College Admission Test (MDCAT) and the composition of the Medical and Dental Council. The core legal questions involved the legislative competence of Parliament regarding medical education post-the Eighteenth Amendment, the validity of discretionary appointment powers under Section 4, and the legality of conducting the MDCAT without fully constituting the National Medical and Dental Academic Board and the National Medical Authority. The court held that the PMC Act, 2020 and Section 18 thereof are intra vires the Constitution of Pakistan, falling within the legislative competence of Parliament under the Federal Legislative List. However, the court read down Section 4 to require a transparent appointment process and directed rules to be framed, while restraining the PMC from holding the MDCAT until the statutory Academic Board and National Medical Authority were duly constituted and a definitive common syllabus was announced without ambiguous objection forms.
Questions settled- Whether Sections 4 and 18 of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 are ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does Parliament possess the legislative competence to enact laws regarding medical education and centralized admission tests under the Federal Legislative List after the Eighteenth Amendment?
- Can the National Medical Authority and Academic Board conduct the MDCAT without being fully constituted and without a proper, definitive common syllabus?
- How should the discretionary powers for appointing members to the Medical and Dental Council under Section 4 of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 be construed by applying the doctrine of reading down?
- Peeral vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1147 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal assails the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt given an unexplained three-month delay in lodging the FIR, unrecovered torchlight as the sole source of identification, suspicious recoveries, and the failure to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case due to numerous glaring doubts, including delayed FIR, missing torchlight identification, flawed recoveries, and the impermissibility of using unnotified evidence under Section 342. The ratio decidendi is that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution story entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, and evidence not put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against them.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained delayed FIR creates serious doubt in the prosecution case?
- Is identification based solely on torch light reliable when the torch is neither recovered nor produced during trial?
- Can a piece of evidence not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used against him?
- Whether the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence requires independent corroboration to maintain the conviction of another co-accused?
- Parveen Akhtar and others vs MCB Bank Limited2020 SHC 1354 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-08Read full judgment →
- Parvaiz S/o Muhammad Uris Solangi vs The State2020 SHC 490 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through Duly Authorized2020 PLD Sindh 733 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
- Pakistan State Oil vs Province of Sindh & another2020 SHC 190 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
- Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd vs Pakistan National Shipping Corporation2021 CLC 761, 2020 SHC 1394 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
- Pakistan State Oil Company Limited vs M/s. Jawed Pervaiz Enterprises2020 SHC 756 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-09Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Mobile Communications Limited vs The Province of Sindh &2020 SHC 1386 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan International Pvt Ltd vs Fed. of Pakistan and Other2020 SHC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Employees Coo. Housing Society vs Kbca & Ors2020 SHC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27Read full judgment →
- Pak Sarzameen Party vs E.C.P. & Others2020 SHC 754 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-21Read full judgment →
- P.T.C.L vs Pakistan & another2020 SHC 220 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
- P.C. Nasir Hussain vs The State2020 SHC 418 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which transferred a case involving an attack on police personnel to a regular Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether the alleged act of firing upon police officers during a matrimonial dispute automatically constitutes terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby necessitating trial in an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court held that the impugned order was correct and dismissed the application. Relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Ghulam Hussain v. The State, the Court affirmed that an act, even if grave or involving violence against law enforcement, does not qualify as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, unless it is designed to coerce, intimidate, or overawe the government or public, or to advance specific sectarian, ethnic, or religious causes. The key principle laid down is that actions taken in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta do not satisfy the statutory definition of terrorism, regardless of the severity of the violence involved.
Questions settled- Does an act of violence against police personnel automatically constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Can an action committed in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta be classified as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Is an order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, challengeable under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Overseas Pakistan Foundation vs N.I.R.C (Full Bench) and 02 others2020 SHC 1432 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation challenging the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relation Commission (NIRC) Full Bench and Single Member Bench, which had set aside the discharge of respondent No.3 from service and reinstated him with back benefits. The core legal question centered on whether the NIRC had jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition and whether concurrent findings of fact by the labor forums could be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the employee fell within the definition of a 'worker' or 'workman' under the relevant labor laws, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the NIRC, and that concurrent factual findings free from illegality or material irregularity cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that High Courts will not disturb concurrent findings of lower judicial forums unless a patent error of law or perverse appreciation of evidence is demonstrated, while employers retain the right to take lawful disciplinary measures following due process.
Questions settled- Whether the National Industrial Relation Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition filed by an employee whose duties fall within the ambit of a worker or workman?
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by labor forums under its constitutional jurisdiction without establishing an illegality, infirmity, or material irregularity?
- Does an employer retain the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against an employee in accordance with service regulations after following due legal formalities?
- Otsuka Pakistan Limited vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Health2020 MLD 185 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the award of a government tender for the supply of Large Volume Parenterals (LVPs) equipped with an injection port and eurocap. The core legal question is whether a tender could be awarded in derogation of the mandatory terms and conditions prescribed in the bidding documents and to a bidder who failed financial soundness criteria. The Sindh High Court held that the decision to award the contract to a non-compliant bidder, whose products lacked the mandatory eurocap and who failed financial soundness thresholds, was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of public interest and procurement laws. The court established that terms of a tender cannot be varied post-opening of bids to favor a single party, and that judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction is maintainable in matters affecting public health and procurement transparency.
Questions settled- Whether a tender can be awarded in derogation of the mandatory terms and conditions prescribed in the bidding documents?
- Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding procurement processes that impact public health and public interest?
- Can the terms and conditions of a tender be altered or reinterpreted after the opening of bids?
- Is the acceptance of a bid from a participant who fails the mandatory financial soundness criteria sustainable in law?
- Oshaque Ahmed @ Oshaque Ali s/o Shahmir Khan Lashari vs Rajindar2020 SHC 1228 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Oshaque Ahmed @ Oshaque Ali Lashari, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of his initial bail plea by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the complainant's stance. The High Court, upon reviewing the record and noting that the complainant appeared in person and expressed no objection to the confirmation of bail, allowed the application. The court held that since the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement and the complainant consented to the relief, the interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where a complainant voluntarily settles the dispute with the accused and raises no objection to the grant of bail, such consent constitutes a significant factor for the court to consider in confirming pre-arrest bail, provided the overall circumstances of the case warrant such relief.
Questions settled- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the complainant has reached an out-of-court settlement with the accused?
- Does the lack of objection from a complainant regarding the confirmation of bail influence the court's decision in a non-compoundable offence?
- Is a delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the court to consider when confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Oocl Pakistan Pvt Ltd vs Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1098 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27Read full judgment →
- Olympia Trading Co. vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2020 SHC 1004 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
- Okash Khalid Memon & 04 others vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 PLC (C.S. ) 463, 2020 SHC 160 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the appointment of officers from other cadres to the post of Secretary (BPS-17), District Regional Transport Authorities (DRTA), contending that the 2011 Recruitment Rules restricted such appointments to specific methods, excluding transfers from other departments. The core legal question was whether the government possessed the authority to fill these posts via transfer from other cadres, thereby bypassing the prescribed recruitment methods. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the post of Secretary, DRTA, falls within the cadre schedule, which permits the appointment of officers from the Provincial Administrative Service (PAS), Ex-PCS, and Provincial Secretariat Service (PSS). The Court established that while Rule 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, allows for appointment by transfer, this power is not absolute. Such transfers must strictly adhere to eligibility, qualifications, and procedural requirements, including review by the Departmental Promotion Committee or Provincial Selection Board. Furthermore, Rule 9(1) cannot be utilized as a mechanism for horizontal movement or permanent absorption into a different cadre against the established scheme of the Act and Rules.
Questions settled- Can the government fill a post by transfer from other cadres if the specific Recruitment Rules prescribe only initial appointment and promotion?
- Does Rule 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, allow for the permanent absorption of a civil servant into a different cadre?
- Is the power to appoint a civil servant by transfer under Rule 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, subject to the eligibility and qualification conditions of the transferee department?
- Obaid Jamshed vs The StatePTCL 2021 CL. 516, 2020 YLR 929, 2020 PTD 493 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application arises from FIR No. 01 of 2018 under sections 2(37) and 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, involving allegations of sales tax evasion, fake registration, and fraudulent import of fabrics by the main accused, Saif-ul-Mulk. The applicant, Obaid Jamshed, was implicated in the interim challan as a broker and tax consultant who allegedly facilitated the offense and claimed monetary benefits. The core legal question is whether the applicant has made out a case for post-arrest bail considering the tentative nature of the evidence, his role as a secondary accused, and the rule of consistency with co-accused who were already granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the case against the applicant falls within the scope of further inquiry under the statutory provisions, as the allegations primarily rested on an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession and he was not the principal offender. The court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of evidence, lack of active connivance with the main accused, and parity with co-accused form valid grounds for granting bail in tax fraud cases.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the allegations against an accused are based on an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession?
- Does a secondary accused acting as a broker in a tax evasion scheme make out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of parity when co-accused with similar allegations have already been granted bail?
- Oasis Travels (Pvt.) Limited vs Donvand Limited and others2020 CLC 1128 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-17Read full judgment →
- Noureen Naz & others vs Province of Sindh and others2020 SHC 172 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-20Read full judgment →
- Nouman Ali vs Mst. Firdous & Others2020 SHC 716 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
- Nouman @ Foji vs The State2020 SHC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
- Notan Lal vs The State2020 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging the order of the Sessions Judge, Ghotki, who had dismissed the applicant's post-arrest bail application on the ground of lacking jurisdiction, holding that the offense under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constituted terrorism under Section 6(2)(f) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether an offense under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically qualifies as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 merely due to its gravity or the setting in which it was allegedly committed. The Sindh High Court held that an action, however grave, does not constitute terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 unless it fulfills the specific design or purpose criteria outlined in sub-section (1) thereof, alongside falling within sub-section (2). The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Sessions Judge to decide the bail application afresh, laying down the principle that the subjective gravity of an offense without the statutory intent specified in Section 6(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 does not attract anti-terrorism jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does an offense under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
- Can an action, howsoever grave or shocking, be categorized as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without meeting the specific design or purpose requirements of sub-section (1)?
- Must sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be read in conjunction with sub-section (1) to determine if an act constitutes terrorism?
- Noor Muhammad vs Ex Officio Justice of Peace A.D.J.I Tando Allahyar2020 SHC 508 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and others vs Province of Sindh and others2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 204 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
- Noor Hassan vs The State2020 YLR 2643 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for four years and six months along with a fine. The core legal question involves whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered narcotics and proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and transmission of the charas due to the non-examination of key officials, delayed chemical examination, and discrepancies in the weight of the recovered substance. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the non-examination of the Malkhana in-charge and the official who transported the sample to the chemical examiner creates a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case regarding safe custody?
- Does a delay in submitting the recovered narcotics for chemical examination entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- Noor Ali vs The Province Of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh, Home Department, Karachi and 3 others2020 PLD Sindh 700 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff instituted a civil suit against the defendants seeking reinstatement in service with back benefits and damages for malicious prosecution, unlawful arrest, and mental torture following his arrest in a criminal case and subsequent acquittal. The core legal questions addressed whether the suit for damages for malicious prosecution was maintainable and within the period of limitation, and whether the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution were established. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove malice, want of reasonable and probable cause, or that the prosecution terminated in his favour on the ground of innocence rather than the benefit of doubt. The court further held that the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1908. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The key legal principle laid down is that to sustain an action for malicious prosecution, all essential elements—including malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause—must cumulatively coexist, and an acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt alone does not establish malicious prosecution.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients that must coexist to sustain an action for malicious prosecution?
- Does an acquittal of an accused person by extending the benefit of doubt automatically establish a case for malicious prosecution against the arresting officer or complainant?
- What is the prescribed period of limitation for filing a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment?
- Does the issuance of a legal notice extend the period of limitation for instituting a civil suit when the original cause of action has already expired?
- Noman Khan vs The State2020 MLD 1113 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves special criminal appeals directed against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and section 23(i)A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 following the alleged recovery of a large cache of arms, explosives, and ammunition from a park store where the appellant worked as manager. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved exclusive possession and guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when the premises had been taken over by the municipal corporation months prior to the incident, and whether the non-production of case property and lack of forensic continuity vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish exclusive possession or connect the appellant to the recovered items, noting significant gaps in the investigation, failure to produce the case property, and unresolved access to the locked premises. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as of right, and where the premises were not in the exclusive control of the accused, conviction cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the recovered case property during trial render the conviction unsustainable?
- Whether an accused can be held in exclusive possession of premises when the municipal corporation had taken over possession months prior to the alleged raid?
- Is a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- Does the absence of evidence regarding the safe custody and delayed transmission of items to the forensic laboratory weaken the prosecution case?
- Nizar Noor Ali and others vs Ameer Ali and others2020 [M] C L R 1279 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
- Nitesh Kumar vs Muhammad Hassan and others2020 SHC 177 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
- Nisar Mustafa Shaikh (Since dead) vs Sajid Ahmed Kalhoro2020 SHC 1400 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
- Nihal Khan vs P.O Sindh & others2020 SHC 92 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
- Nib Bank Limited through Authorized Officer and Special Attorney vs Messrs2020 CLD 1227 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-01Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali Rajper vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 96 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Niaz Ali Rajper, who was tried and convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, for offenses including kidnapping for ransom and anti-terrorism activities. The prosecution's case was that the appellant, along with an accomplice, abducted a 10-year-old schoolboy from a government primary school for ransom and was subsequently apprehended by the police during an encounter following a search. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of kidnapping for ransom without a completed payment, whether the defense plea of enmity was sustainable, and whether the testimony of related witnesses and the abductee was reliable. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through natural, confidence-inspiring ocular testimony from the abductee and eyewitnesses, corroborated by police recovery and medical/forensic reports. The court laid down the principle that under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 2(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the actual payment or formal demand of ransom is not a sine qua non to constitute the offense of kidnapping for ransom, provided the abduction was executed for that purpose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld.
Questions settled- Is the actual payment or demand of ransom a mandatory requirement to constitute an offense under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the testimony of related prosecution witnesses and the victim can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a kidnapping case?
- Does a mere allegation of false implication due to enmity suffice to absolve an accused without bringing supportive evidence on record?
- Whether the offense of kidnapping for ransom is established when the victim is rescued by police during an encounter immediately following the abduction?
- Niaz Ali and another vs Mst. Aisha and another2020 CLC 669 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ahmed Abro and others vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2020 SHC 1434 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
- Next Capital Limited through Chief Financial Officer vs The Assistant2020 PTD 808 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a brokerage house, filed a constitutional petition challenging the imposition of sales tax on consultancy services under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, for the tax years ending June 2014. The petitioner sought to bypass the statutory appellate forum, arguing that the legal issue was already pending before the High Court in a separate reference and that departmental authorities had consistently ruled against them. The Court held that the mere pendency of a similar legal question before the High Court or adverse departmental rulings does not constitute a valid ground to abandon or bypass the statutory appellate forum provided under Section 57 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011. The Court emphasized that constitutional petitions under Article 199 are reserved for cases involving fundamental rights violations or challenges to legislative competence. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy against the Order-in-Original while issuing pre-admission notices to examine the specific legal question regarding the taxability of consultancy services in the absence of a specific entry in the Second Schedule.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a similar legal question before the High Court justify bypassing the statutory appellate forum?
- Can a taxpayer bypass the statutory appeal process simply because departmental authorities have previously decided similar issues against them?
- Under what circumstances can a party approach the High Court under Article 199 instead of exhausting statutory remedies?
- Neie-Smadb-Lilley-RMS (JV) through authorized representative and 22020 YLR 519 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
- NBP Saving Fund vs Fed. of Pakistan & Ors2020 SHC 1210 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
- Nazim Inayat vs National Command and Authority and 07 others2020 SHC 938 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-10Read full judgment →
- Nazia Khan vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Education and 32020 PLC (C.S.) 101 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a female candidate, challenged the Education Department's refusal to appoint her as a Junior School Teacher (JST) despite her securing 82 marks in the NTS examination and being eligible under the Teachers Recruitment Policy, 2012. The respondents contended that appointments were made based on need-based vacancy positions within specific Union Councils and that no vacancies existed for female candidates in the petitioner's Union Council, leading to the appointment of male candidates instead. The core legal question was whether the department's policy of excluding female candidates from specific vacancies based on gender-specific need assessments violated constitutional safeguards. The Court held that the department's action was discriminatory and lacked evidentiary support, as no proof was provided that vacancy positions were clearly advertised as male-only. The Court emphasized that Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, prohibits discrimination in public service appointments based on sex. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the authorities to issue an appointment order for the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the exclusion of female candidates from public service vacancies based on gender-specific need assessments violate Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a government department deny appointment to a qualified candidate based on a need-based vacancy policy if the gender-specific nature of the vacancy was not clearly advertised?
- Is it discriminatory to prioritize male candidates over a higher-scoring female candidate for a teaching position under the guise of need-based Union Council vacancies?
- Nazer Ahmed vs The State2020 SHC 492 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain vs Ghulam Murtaza & another2020 SHC 132 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
- Nawab Ali and others vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1319 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by multiple accused persons charged under Sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 311, 355, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged assault involving hatchets, cudgels, and the smearing of black oil. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail, particularly considering that some charges fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while bail is generally granted for offences outside the prohibitory clause, it is not a matter of right and can be refused based on the specific facts and circumstances. The Court distinguished between the accused who caused injuries to vital body parts and those who did not. Consequently, the bail application for the primary accused, who caused head injuries, was dismissed, while the remaining accused were granted bail as their case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle laid down is that bail is not an absolute right even for non-prohibitory offences.
Questions settled- Is bail a matter of right for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause?
- Does the existence of enmity between parties serve as a ground for granting bail?
- Nawab Ali and 8 others vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1537 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application arises from FIR No. 186/2019 registered at Police Station Daharki under Sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 311, 355, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein nine applicants sought post-arrest bail. The core legal question involved whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly considering that certain offences attributed to them fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that applicants Abdul Ghafoor and Gul Hassan, who were attributed specific roles of causing head injuries declared as Shajjah-i-Mudiha and supported by recoveries and positive chemical reports, were not entitled to bail despite the offences falling outside the prohibitory clause, as bail in such cases is not a matter of right. Conversely, the remaining applicants, whose attributed injuries fell under Section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and who were no longer required for investigation, were granted post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for further inquiry. The key principles laid down are that bail in cases outside the prohibitory clause is not a right and can be refused based on the gravity of specific roles, and that delay or lack of necessity for further detention warrants bail under further inquiry.
Questions settled- Is bail in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to be granted as a matter of right?
- Can post-arrest bail be refused to an accused whose case falls outside the prohibitory clause when specific active roles and weapon recoveries are attributed?
- Does a case warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused are attributed minor injuries not on vital parts of the body and are no longer required for investigation?
- Nawab Ali @ Nawab Nabu vs The State2020 SHC 554 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Nawab Ali, who was charged with causing injuries to the complainant using the butt of a gun. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to him and the fact that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The Court observed that while the accused was armed, he did not discharge the weapon, and the specific injury attributed to him under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 carried a maximum punishment of five years, thereby placing it outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding no evidence of previous convictions and noting the accused's regular appearance before the Trial Court, the Court confirmed the interim bail. The principle laid down is that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the bail statute, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, provided the accused is not a previous convict.
Questions settled- Does an offense punishable by five years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a Trial Court cancel bail without reference to the High Court if the accused misuses the concession?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the specific injury attributed to them does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?